 ;; Case is covered by reserving t1 for tc1?  Seems OK.
 
 
-
-
-
+;;;;;;;;;; Implementation notes
+
+
+
+;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; Auxiliary
+
+;; How can we get around auxiliary reservation problem in nice way?
+;;  Can say, no reservy unless you own canonical.
+;;  This means you must be able to reserve canonical even if want value greedily.
+;;  If you don't own canonical, we don't generate the edge.
+
+;; Actions on auxiliary not needed since when we generate them,
+;;  it must be reserved for a var 
+;; And auxiliary as child of canonical should be prevented by child pruning, based on this fact.
+
+;; TODO/  note: if multiple auxiliaries for single canonical, don't necessarily want to
+;;         choose for canonical -- screws up greedy. 
+
+;; Note: if t1 reserved for tc1, and p1 wants t1, p1 is blocked on tc1, also wants tc1.
+;;       this is not quite a deadlock.  Top-down could resolve this.
+;;       Failure is in 
 
 
 ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; Misc TODOs 
;; TODO: add clusters -- leave out for now.
;; TODO: add top-down, leave out for now.
;; TODO: we can generate cyclic plans -- figure out how to avoid this.
;; TODO: heuristic costs for commitments.  At minimum, heuristic is sum of min costs of action intentions.
;; TODO: identify superflous resources -- i.e., over-capacity trucks.
;; TODO: state abstraction / teleportation / generalized goal.


;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; Partition ordering

;; If there are cycles that do not effect the reserving action
;; TODO: dynamic determination of effect clustering, conflicts
;; NOTE: we require that possible-actions-var is correct for vars other than v,
;;  and children are correct for vars other than (into or out of) v?
;;  but state may be otherwise inconsistent.
;;  (must take care, this happens in future state currently...)
(defn make-possible-actions-fn [dtgs effect-cluster-map pre-partition?]
